Overview · Filed: Jul 12, 2023
UPC_CFI_239/2023
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONVERTING LIGHT ENERGY INTO ELECTRICAL ENERGY
InfringementMain Infringement ActionThe Hague LDInfringementCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 26
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | language regime / exemption from translation of exhibits | Binding | Eisers verzoeken het gerecht te beslissen dat het niet nodig is om Engelstalige producties ter vertalen naar het Nederlands … R.7.1 beslissing op verzoek ex R.13(q) RoP |
| 7 | language regime / exemption from translation of exhibits | Binding | R.7.1 beslissing op verzoek ex R.13(q) RoP |
| 323 | language of proceedings / change to language of patent grant | Binding | ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance … Pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) |
| 322 | change of language of proceedings by agreement | Binding | The Applicant … referring to both R. 322 and R. 323 RoP, has asked for a change of the language of the proceedings from Dutch into English |
| 323 | time limit for language change application | Binding | the requirement stated by R. 323.1 RoP is to be understood as a time-limit for the Applicant thus requested to ask for a change of the language of the proceedings at the latest when lodging the statement of defense |
| 323 | procedural steps for language change application | Binding | R. 323.2 and .3 RoP provide next that: 'The President shall invite the other party to indicate, within 10 days, its position' |
| 323 | President's power to order language change | Binding | having consulted the panel of the division, may order that the language in which the patent was granted shall be the language of the proceedings |
| 324 | translation arrangements on language change | Binding | pursuant R. 324 RoP, an Application under Rule 321.1 or 323.1 'shall specify whether existing pleadings and other documents should be translated and at whose cost' |
| 14 | language regime / preamble | Background | The Applicant bases his request for change of the language of the proceedings on a 'reasonable interpretation' of the Preamble and Rules 14, 321, 322 and 323 RoP along with Art. 41, 49 and 52 UPCA |
| 29 | deadline to file defence to counterclaim for revocation | Binding | According to rule 29(a) RoP, the claimant must file a Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation and any Application to amend the patent pursuant to rule 30 RoP within two months of service of a Statement of defence containing a Counterclaim for revocation |
| 331 | judge-rapporteur case management | Binding | Headnote: Defence to Counterclaim not filed together with reply to defence in claim as required by R. 29(a). Deadline to file Defence in the Counterclaim extended (R. 331., 334(a) and 9.3(a) RoP). |
| 334 | judge-rapporteur powers | Binding | Deadline to file Defence in the Counterclaim extended (R. 331., 334(a) and 9.3(a) RoP). |
| 9 | extension of time limits | Binding | Deadline to file Defence in the Counterclaim extended (R. 331., 334(a) and 9.3(a) RoP). |
| 30 | application to amend patent | Binding | the claimant must file a Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation and any Application to amend the patent pursuant to rule 30 RoP within two months |
| 26 | correction of deficiencies in counterclaim | Binding | the CMS requires the Counterclaim also to be filed separately, and a fee needs to be paid (Rule 26 RoP). |
| 25 | counterclaim for revocation filed with statement of defence | Binding | Bioo filed a counterclaim for revocation (hereinafter: the Counterclaim) pursuant to rule 25.1 RoP. |
| 37 | bifurcation procedure | Binding | Giving parties the opportunity to comment on the application of article 33(3) UPCA in line with rule 37(2) RoP |
| 262 | protection of confidential information | Binding | Application under R. 262A RoP by the claimants for a confidentiality order regarding financial information provided with their reply to an Application under R. 158 RoP. Application granted. |
| 158 | security for costs application | Background | the present application for the protection of confidential information pursuant to R. 262A of the Rules of Procedure … was made by the claimants … with Plant-e's reply to a R. 158 application filed by the defendant |
| 262 | scope of confidentiality protection / minimum persons | Binding | The number of persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be no greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the right of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial |
| 262 | protection of confidential information | Binding | Application under R. 262A RoP by the claimants for a confidentiality order regarding financial information provided with their reply to an Application under R. 158 RoP. Application granted. |
| 158 | security for costs application | Background | the present application for the protection of confidential information pursuant to R. 262A of the Rules of Procedure … was made by the claimants … with Plant-e's reply to a R. 158 application filed by the defendant |
| 262 | scope of confidentiality protection / minimum persons | Binding | The number of persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be no greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the right of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial |
| RoP_rule_37.2 | jurisdiction — procedure on counterclaim for revocation | Binding | the parties were invited to comment on the application of article 33(3) UPCA in line with R. 37.2 and R. 264 RoP. |
| RoP_rule_264 | jurisdiction — procedure on counterclaim for revocation | Binding | the parties were invited to comment on the application of article 33(3) UPCA in line with R. 37.2 and R. 264 RoP. |
| RoP_rule_37.3 | jurisdiction — allocation of technically qualified judge | Binding | the allocation to the panel of a technically qualified judge has been requested (R. 37.3 RoP). |
courtName.other · 6
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 49 | change of language of proceedings to language of patent grant | Binding | According to Art. 49 (5) UPCA, the use of the language in which the patent was granted as the language of the proceedings can be decided 'on grounds of fairness and taking into account all relevant circumstances' |
| 41 | language of proceedings | Background | Rules 14, 321, 322 and 323 RoP along with Art. 41, 49 and 52 UPCA |
| 52 | language of proceedings | Background | Rules 14, 321, 322 and 323 RoP along with Art. 41, 49 and 52 UPCA |
| 33 | bifurcation in infringement action with counterclaim for revocation | Binding | Giving parties the opportunity to comment on the application of article 33(3) UPCA in line with rule 37(2) RoP |
| 58 | protection of confidential information / trade secrets | Binding | the protection of trade secrets, personal data or other confidential information in proceedings before the UPC is provided for in Art. 58 UPCA which has been implemented in R. 262A RoP. |
| 58 | protection of confidential information / trade secrets | Binding | the protection of trade secrets, personal data or other confidential information in proceedings before the UPC is provided for in Art. 58 UPCA which has been implemented in R. 262A RoP. |
EPC article · 3
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 33(3) | jurisdiction — joint hearing of infringement and counterclaim for revocation | Binding | the panel of the Local Division The Hague decides to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA). |
| 69 | claim construction — scope of protection assessed applying Art.69 EPC and Protocol | Binding | The scope of protection in the case of infringement is assessed in two steps, applying Art. 69 EPC and the Protocol. |
| 64 | infringement by equivalents — basis for ordering recall letter/website publication | Binding | The court can order a specific wording for a letter to be sent to customers or to be published on the website of the infringer based on Art. 64 UPCA and Union law. |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
| Cited in | Date | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_APP_22747/2025 Court of Appeal | Jun 23, 2025 | infringement | Background | in the infringement action, UPC_CFI_239/2023 ACT_549536/2023 ORD_598516/2023 |
| UPC_CFI_43/2025 The Hague LD | Mar 3, 2026 | infringement by equivalents | Persuasive | While there is no harmonized approach to determining an equivalent use of the teaching of the patent among the Local Divisions of this Court yet (see: Local Chamber in The Hague, decision on the merits of 22 November 2024, UPC_CFI_239/2023 |
| UPC_CFI_26/2025 Vienna LD | Feb 19, 2026 | infringement by equivalents | Persuasive | While there is no harmonized approach to determining an equivalent use of the teaching of the patent among the Local Divisions of this Court yet (see: Local Chamber in The Hague, decision on the merits of 22 November 2024, UPC_CFI_239/2023 |